alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JD AMERICAN WORKWEAR, INC.

                              46 OLD FLAT RIVER RD.

                          COVENTRY, RHODE ISLAND 02816

                TELEPHONE (401) 397-6800 FACSIMILE (401) 397-6804

June 1, 2000

Board of Directors of
International Commerce and Finance, Inc.

Hand Delivered

Gentlemen:

     Thank you for your  attendance  at today's  meeting.  The  projects,  their
growth and the profit potential  presented today were exciting and have elicited
the following  proposal.  If you agree with the proposal  presented  please sign
this letter and return.  Although this is an informal  agreement,  if signed,  I
would  expect all  parties to adhere to its basic  tenants for the length of the
term.

     JD American Workwear,  Inc. ("JDAW") is a publicly traded company quoted on
the NASD Bulletin  Board and as such can bring benefit to your  shareholders  by
providing you with access to public funding and additional profit potential from
a rising stock price.

     We would like to propose  that JDAW be  awarded an option to  purchase  and
right of first refusal on any and all projects currently contemplated by ICF and
any such  endeavors as may be  conceived,  acquired or partnered in the next two
years.  We  understand  that no structure  for sale of these  concepts,  current
management agreements or potential  acquisitions currently exists. We would only
be interested in making these potential  acquisitions in a tax-free  exchange of
stock so that you would be  required  to place these  businesses  into  separate
corporations that we would buy.

     With the  culmination of the first such  contemplated  transaction we would
welcome  three of your  members  to  positions  as senior  officers  in JDAW and
provide one seat on our seven-member board of directors.

     The  subsidiary  acquired  would  require  its  current  managers  to  sign
long-term  employment  contracts  with certain  earnings  provisions  and profit
sharing from their specific  operations  after tax net income.  Each  subsidiary
would have its own management team for operations with a liaison from the parent
to oversee but not interfere with management.

     When growth,  profitability or other factors dictate,  JDAW would commit to
the creation of a new public  entity for each  subsidiary or division to operate
in with the  current  shareholders  of JDAW  receiving  a dividend of 10% of the
value of the new company and the parent retaining a 10% stake. The remaining 80%
would be acquired by the subsidiaries current management by returning the shares
originally issued for its acquisition by JDAW.

     To  facilitate  this  agreement  we offer you 25,000  shares of JDAW common
stock,  which  would be issued  with a  restrictive  legend  and  included  in a
registration to be filed on or before August 15, 2000.

                                        Sincerely,

                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        David N. DeBaene, President

Accepted By,

-------------------------
Daniel L. Hefner, President
ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT
    

The Board of Directors
Optical Cable Corporation:

   
   We consent to incorporation  by reference in the registration  statement (No.
33-09433) on Form S-8 of Optical Cable  Corporation of our report dated December
13, 1996,  relating to the balance  sheets of Optical  Cable  Corporation  as of
October 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related  statements of income,  stockholders'
equity,  and cash  flows for each of the years in the  three-year  period  ended
October 31, 1996, which report appears in the October 31, 1996, annual report on
Form 10-K of Optical Cable Corporation.

                                                       /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Roanoke, Virginia
January 29, 1997
    

                                1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      53,815,461
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  906,911
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            55,278,687
<PP&E>                                      10,767,551
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,152,955
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,299,581
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,320,339
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,452
<OTHER-SE>                                  53,728,822
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,299,581
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,989,572
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,814,706
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,378,990
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,167,513)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,167,513)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,675,948)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.40)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6498

DOUGLAS DEMPSEY, III, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

LEROY CARTLEDGE, Acting Warden, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(0:08-cv-01054-HFF) 

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 30, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Douglas Dempsey, III, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Douglas Dempsey, III, seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dempsey has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
# C_2019328EN.01002201.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 4 July 2019 — BMW Bayerische Motorenwerke AG v Hauptzollamt München

(Case C-509/19)

(2019/C 328/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BMW Bayerische Motorenwerke AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

Question referred

Should the development costs for software that has been produced in the European Union, made available to the seller by the buyer free of charge and installed on the imported control unit be added to the transaction value for the imported product pursuant to Article 71(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (1) if they are not included in the price actually paid or payable for the imported product?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.

---
# C_2019280EN.01003102.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Criminal proceedings against NJ

(Case C-489/19)

(2019/C 280/43)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Party to the main proceedings

Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin

v

NJ

Questions referred

Does the dependence of a public prosecutor's office on instructions prevent him from effectively issuing a European arrest warrant, (1) even if that decision is subject to a full judicial review before the execution of the European arrest warrant?

---

(1)  See Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

---
#### HOPE, Respondent, v. SCRANTON & LEHIGH COAL CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 15, 1907.)

Action by Michael Hope against the Scranton & Lehigh Coal Company.

No opinion. Motion for reargument denied.
# C_2019328EN.01001101.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 7 June 2019 — Vodafone España S.A.U. v Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa

(Case C-443/19)

(2019/C 328/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone España S.A.U.

Defendant: Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa

Question referred

Whether Article 13 and related and supplementary provisions of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (1) must be interpreted as precluding the Kingdom of Spain, and specifically the fiscally autonomous historic territory of Guipúzcoa, from making telecommunications operators’ right of use of radio frequencies — which is already subject to what is known as the spectrum fee — subject to the general tax on capital transfers and documented legal acts that applies generally to administrative concessions of publicly owned assets, in accordance with local laws governing the said tax?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

---
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

453 

CA 14-01560 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

KONDAUR CAPITAL CORPORATION, AS SEPARATE TRUSTEE 

OF MATAWIN VENTURES TRUST SERIES 2012-3, 

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

DIANNE L. LUNN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, 

ET AL., DEFENDANTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

DIANNE L. LUNN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE. 

JOHN PINCUS, NEW YORK CITY, FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (J.

Scott Odorisi, J.), entered July 10, 2014 in a mortgage foreclosure

action. The order, among other things, granted plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed 

without costs (see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 AD2d 988;

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts, 63 AD2d 566, 567; see

also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). 

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# C_2020010EN.01002102.xml

| 13.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/21

---

Appeal brought on 24 May 2019 by Hochmann Marketing GmbH against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) made on 22 March 2019 in Case T-657/18, Hochmann Marketing GmbH v Council of the European Union

(Case C-408/19 P)

(2020/C 10/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Hochmann Marketing GmbH (represented by: J. Jennings, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

By order of 31 October 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
# C_2020077EN.01002801.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 11 December 2019 — EP v Kreis Groß-Gerau

(Case C-905/19)

(2020/C 77/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EP

Defendant: Kreis Groß-Gerau

Questions referred

Can it be inferred from the prohibition of discrimination in Article 64 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Tunisia (1) that a curtailment of the period of validity of a residence permit because the conditions for the grant of that residence permit are no longer satisfied is prohibited if

| — | the Tunisian national was in employment at the time when the retroactive curtailment of the period of validity of the residence permit was notified, |
| --- | --- |

—

the Tunisian national was in employment at the time when the retroactive curtailment of the period of validity of the residence permit was notified,

| — | the decision to curtail the period of validity is not based on grounds relating to the protection of a legitimate national interest, such as public policy, public security or public health, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the decision to curtail the period of validity is not based on grounds relating to the protection of a legitimate national interest, such as public policy, public security or public health, and

| — | the Tunisian national did not possess authorisation to take up employment (work permit) that was independent of the residence permit, but was entitled by law to take up employment during the period of validity of the residence permit? |
| --- | --- |

—

the Tunisian national did not possess authorisation to take up employment (work permit) that was independent of the residence permit, but was entitled by law to take up employment during the period of validity of the residence permit?

Does the legal status of a foreign national arising from the prohibition of discrimination in Article 64 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Tunisia require, in addition to the residence permit, the grant of an administrative authorisation to take up employment?

What is the relevant point in time for the assessment of legal status under the law on residence and work permits? Is the relevant point in time the date of adoption of the administrative decision withdrawing the right of residence or the date of the judicial decision?

---

(1)  Euro-Mediterranean Agreement of 17 July 1995 establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part (OJ 1998 L 97, p. 1).

---
Exhibit 32.2



NANOGEN, INC.



CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY

RULE
13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



I, David Ludvigson,
President, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Nanogen, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certify that, based on my knowledge:



|(1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |                                                                                          
|----------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|November 15, 2004 |  | /s/ DAVID LUDVIGSON                                                                      
|                  |  | David Ludvigson President, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-10570

BOBBY DON COOK,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS; TOM WILDER, District Clerk of Tarrant

County, Texas

Defendants-Appellees

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consolidated w/No. 09-10571

PETER HINOJOSA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS; TOM WILDER, District Clerk of Tarrant

County, Texas

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas-Fort Worth Division

No. 4:08-CV-00316-A

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and BENAVIDES and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 1, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 09-10570, cons. w/No. 09-10571

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

2

PER CURIAM:*

The court has carefully considered these consolidated cases in light of the

briefs, oral argument and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we

find no reversible error of law or fact and affirm essentially for the reasons

stated by the district court.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

THANKSGIVING COFFEE COMPANY, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, the undersigned President of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented
therein.
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Joan KatzeffPresidentMarch 30, 2006
# C_2021163EN.01003101.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/31

---

Order of the General Court of 23 February 2021 — Frutas Tono v EUIPO — Agrocazalla (Marién)

(Case T-587/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Intervention by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal - Response lodged out of time - Refusal to grant leave to intervene under Article 173(1) of the Rules of Procedure - Cancellation of the earlier word mark serving as a basis for the contested decision - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 163/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Frutas Tono, SL (Benifairó de la Valldigna, Spain) (represented by: A. Cañizares Doménech, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Agrocazalla, SL (Lorca, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 June 2019 (Case R 171/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Agrocazalla and Frutas Tono.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Agrocazalla, SL is not granted leave to participate in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Agrocazalla, SL is not granted leave to participate in the proceedings.

| 2. | Agrocazalla shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Agrocazalla shall bear its own costs.

| 3. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 4. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

---